Alan_Hoch said:
Astrology doesn't work perfect either – do you consign astrology to the dustbin of pseudo-science as well? Because I believe most of your arguments can be applied to astrology too.
[Apologetics of Astrology]
Astrology can't predict the outcome with absolute certainty. Keep in mind that behavior is the result of personality running smack against actual circumstance. As our circumstances change so will our responses -- even when the personalities stay the same. That is why one must always pay attention to the PATTERN of the response rather than the response itself. Only consider the behavior and not its cause and you are guaranteed to get mighty confused -- perhaps enough to mistakenly write off astrology all together.
Another consideration -- we human beings are adaptable beings. One of the aims of fortelling, for example, is to make people aware of their own natures. In doing so they gain the ability to >break< patterns of behavior -- which means defying predictions. This fact hardly negates the usefulness of astrology. In fact, it only helps confirm it.
The human psyche and its relation to the stars is an immensely complicated thing -- and our understanding of it is still limited. If you think that the mere fact that we can't always give fixed predictions as if human nature was as constant as the laws of physics then your expectations are far too unreasonable.
[/Apologetics of Astrology]
I can make the same prediction: I predict that their future behaviour will be the same as their past behaviour.
But that would be a bit like predicting the weather by saying: the weather of tomorrow will be the same as the weather of today. Since weather often stays the same for some days, it is highly likely that this "prediction" will be true.
If a theory can be used to predict every possible outcome, it is of no help if this theory is sophisticated, very sophisticated or very, very sophisticated. It can be used to predict every possible outcome.
"If you just would have tried faith, you wouldn't use this argument any longer..." I believe that you can apply your theory such that everything makes perfectly sense and explains a lot of things. In fact, every such theory (Freud, Jung or whatever) can be applied so that everything makes perfect sense and a lot of things are explained. The same is true for astrology. And the more sophisticated and complicated your astrological theory is, the better it works.
I forgot to say: welcome on board, Alan!
Psychoanalysis obviously can explain the dreams we humans have. But my claim (and, I assume, Mercutio's claim) is that psychoanalysis can explain everything, and that's why it is equivocal.
Can you construct a dream that could not be explained using psychoanalysis? If so, I suggest you the following experiment: sent a description of this dream to several psychoanalysts, and ask them for an interpretation. If a majority of them answers that this is a dream unlike any they ever encountered, and that they can't make sense of it using their theories, I will admit that I made a fool of myself. If all of them reply with the usual stuff, I would suggest that it would be time for you to ask yourself: "what's going on here?"
Psychoanalysis obviously can explain the dreams we humans have. But my claim (and, I assume, Mercutio's claim) is that psychoanalysis can explain everything, and that's why it is equivocal.
Can you construct a dream that could not be explained using psychoanalysis? If so, I suggest you the following experiment: sent a description of this dream to several psychoanalysts, and ask them for an interpretation. If a majority of them answers that this is a dream unlike any they ever encountered, and that they can't make sense of it using their theories, I will admit that I made a fool of myself. If all of them reply with the usual stuff, I would suggest that it would be time for you to ask yourself: "what's going on here?"
Hmmm....the behaviorists might agree with you about our similar behaviors over time...now how shall we manipulate these "unconscious complexes" to determine what their effects are?Alan_Hoch said:
The problem is not that psychoanalysts cannot make some predictions at times--the problem is that a failure of a prediction does not falsify the underlying theory.
"As our circumstances change, so will our responses"...again, you sound like a good behaviorist here. We have no disagreement there, only in those darned underlying causes...
So psychoanalysis is right if they predict, and right if they don't. I agree. Only I called it "unfalsifiability".
Now you are the one making strawmen. Just like the weather, we are very good at certain types of predictions, and lousy at others. Again, I have no quibble with a claim to be able to predict our behavior, at whatever level. My objection is at the level of the underlying theory. We no longer think the weather is the result of the gods at play...
Someone knowledgeable in Behavior Modification could predict the same thing...and what is more, the fundamentals of B-Mod involve variables which can be measured and manipulated, verified or falsified. We could say "we were wrong", instead of "our failure to predict supports our theory".
Should we look at any number of other aspects, then?
As jan has already suggested, the complications and subtleties here are analogous to astrologers saying we must look at more interactions between heavenly bodies when our original sun sign readings prove less than accurate. Just as there are always more stars to throw into the equation, there are always more defense mechanisms. Of course it is complicated and subtle; we have to keep massaging it until it says what we want it to.
The point is not its simplicity nor its complexity. The point is its unfalsifiability. (thinking on it, the complexity helps lead to the unfalsifiability, so in a way, the point may be its complexity...)
And thus more resistant to falsifying.
Oh, and I apologize for my manners--Welcome, Alan!
Bikewer
Penultimate Amazing
You beat me to it, Mercutio. Of course the car sits in the driveway.
If we turn off enough brain circuitry, we see less and less function.
In sleep, the brain is pretty functional, but hardly quiescent.
In the case of trauma, oxygen deprivation, or under the influence of drugs, we see less and less functionality. At some point, coma, vegetative state, or death.
And trauma to particular points and locations in the brain causes the same sort of malfunction or reduced function in differing patients.
Again, we fail to see the need for some outside influence, some soul or oversoul or duality or whatever else you'd like to call it.
At some point in evolution, our brains became sufficiently complex and interconnected to support consciousness and self-awareness.
If we turn off enough brain circuitry, we see less and less function.
In sleep, the brain is pretty functional, but hardly quiescent.
In the case of trauma, oxygen deprivation, or under the influence of drugs, we see less and less functionality. At some point, coma, vegetative state, or death.
And trauma to particular points and locations in the brain causes the same sort of malfunction or reduced function in differing patients.
Again, we fail to see the need for some outside influence, some soul or oversoul or duality or whatever else you'd like to call it.
At some point in evolution, our brains became sufficiently complex and interconnected to support consciousness and self-awareness.
And will eventually sit there and rot if left there long enough.Bikewer said:
So what? If you continue to snip the wires and the circuitry inside of a radio, it will eventually lose its ability to convert radio waves into sound.
Do you mean like blowing the speaker on a radio?
Once again, you fail to see the need for people to have an identity. Or else why the need for us to experience a sense separatness from things? This is what consciousness affords us anyway.
Something which stems from nothing again, no doubt.
Which part of the brain has to get snipped before we lose the proposed ability to convert your completely undetectable consciousness waves into consciousness? Could you propose a brain area? Didn't think so.Iacchus said:
Funny, I'd have said that our perspective affords us that. I think perhaps I experience a separateness from my couch because I am, in fact, separate from it! Plus, I am a bit confused...we have the ability to sense separateness...why do you say we have a need to?
You could simply dismiss what Bikewer says, Iacchus, or you could investigate it. There are books written and courses taught on "evolution of consciousness". You might wish to educate yourself before simply dismissing something that purports to explain a subject you claim you are interested in.
And yet I think most things can be explained in terms of taking the path of least resitance due to a pre-existing order of things ... which, is none other than cause-and-effect really. However, if we bought into the notion of something coming from nothing, this would not be possible. Things can only change if, in fact there was an option or, proclivity to so in the first place. Nothing in this Universe occurs by happenstance. Matter-of-fact, if this is the case, then there must be a very deliberate reason for our being here.Mercutio said:
I am certain you do think this.Iacchus said:
Oh...this pre-existing order. Let me guess. You figure out what it was after you see what happens, then label whatever happens "the path of least resistance, due to a pre-existing order". This is called begging the question, Iacchus.
Again, a proclivity which you determine only after the fact, by seeing what changed. More begging the question.
You know I don't click on your links... and you can assert this if you like. Does not make it right.
which it is not,
which there is not.
Of course, I am willing to be demonstrated to be wrong. Perhaps...just this once...maybe...you have evidence to support your statements....nah..
No, it's called everything happens according to the pre-existing design. No way you will ever escape such a notion. Unless of course, you can prove to us that something can come from nothing.Mercutio said:
Are you saying you don't believe in cause-and-effect then? Otherwise, what is Science wasting so much time trying to prove? And, just because we may not understand the cause of something, does not mean it doesn't exist. Hasn't Science at least taught you this much? Geeze!
Do you deny that we live in a structured Universe? Yes or no?
Are you unwilling to concede that nothing can change unless there was something already there (set pre-conditions) which allowed it to do so? If that isn't a sign of deliberateness, I don't know what is?
The evidence is all around us. Again, it's called cause-and-effect.
FYI, have started a new thread called, Evidence of God? Thanks!
...which is only seen after-the-fact, and the only evidence for which is the alleged effect. The very definition of begging the question, Iacchus.Iacchus said:
I provided you with a link to an explanation of that logical error. I see you either did not read it or did not understand it.
Bikewer
Penultimate Amazing
Some look at what they see as the marvellously organized and complex universe, and can't concieve that it (and us...) were not the product of some grand design.
Others, more familiar with science and the principals of cosmology and physics see a rather messy universe which is organized only by a very few active principals.
As Stephen Hawking said in A Brief History of Time, "The universe does not require God to exist."
Others, more familiar with science and the principals of cosmology and physics see a rather messy universe which is organized only by a very few active principals.
As Stephen Hawking said in A Brief History of Time, "The universe does not require God to exist."
jan said:
This is just yet variation of a strawman attack, in this case "guilt by association". It proves nothing save that you can engage in rhetorical trickery in an attempt to "prove" an argument.
What's ironic is that this sort of tactic is exactly what many use against science. Take Evolution -- it is a complex idea that becomes convincing only when the evidence for it is taken in mass. A one paragraph explantion of Evolution is -- at least to someone otherwise uninformed -- going to be no more convincing than a one paragraph explanation of Creationism. Creationists take advantage the complexity of Evolution all the time, offering up bogus rebuttals that rely on those listening not being able or willing to get a more detailed explanation of the evidence.
To put it another way, they take advantage of the fact that Evolution cannot be explained in an easy to digest "30-second sound bit" sort of way.
That is all that you are doing here in regards to psychoanalysis -- the "proof" of its unscientific nature you provide is based solely on the manipulative tactic of suggesting (in effect) that since it cannot be explained convincingly in a few paragraphs it is therefore wrong. As I said before this is nothing more than rhetorcial trickery whose power to convince is inversely proportional to the amount of knowledge of the subject someone has.
No, what that means is that yesterday's weather will have an effect on today's, not that it will be an exact duplicate. Same is true for personality -- the inertia built up from previous events and responses will continue to have effects for today and the future.
I would consider this a pretty self-evident truth. To suggest otherwise is to assume that somehow our personalities are reborn each day in a form that has no connection to what has gone before.
Mind you, I'd be quite surprised if you actually believed that, but I point it out to demonstrate the errors in the argument you are offering.
So can any collection of ideas if used wrong. Your argument here seems predicated on the notion that psychoanalysis is by definition always going to be utilized in a manipulative way meant not to offer facts and evidence, but rather just make those using it look good. You could call this the "sinful user" ad hominem argument -- a notion is wrong because -- "obviously" -- those using it are just bad people only out to inflate their egos.
Well, that is not what it does nor what I said. What I said is that it cannot usually give definite black and white predictions. Rather, it points out more likely outcomes over less likely. Even more importantly for therapy, what it does it help explain how someone got to where they are today when it comes to their personality and therefore gives them the insight to change behavior in the future.
If you are saying that psychoanalysis is not an exact science I agree with you, but then again there is a lot of science that deals only with percentages, not black and white truths. That in no way means that such ideas aren't scientific in their approach.
Alan
Mercutio said:
Again, you seem to require the same sort of black and white falsification as Jan -- unless something can be easily shown to be true or false to 100% accuracy then it is not falsifiable. The idea that something might only be somewhat accurate or that accuracy is something that can be intuitively determined from the evidence seems lost on you.
Evolution is again a good example of how this sort of thinking inevitably falls apart -- the theory as a whole cannot be proven in a black and white fashion. The lengthly time periods involved means that we cannot sit around and watch the whole process play out in front of us. Rather, its accuracy is something that must be intuitively determined based on the evidence -- e.g. it is the best explanation for the facts we have.
Psychoanalysis works the same way -- it strives to explain the organization and nature of human personality in an intuitive fashion based on the available evidence. Yes, you can argue that its conclusions are in error, but you cannot say that its approach is unscientific (which is the whole point of this argument).
It seems to me that your argument (and Jan's) boils down to one idea -- that psychoanalysis cannot be trusted to play "fair" with its own ideas. That is, it will inevitably manipulate the data to fit its preconceptions rather than admit to any sort of error. To put it another way, you argue that since it >CAN< manipulate the facts it inevitably will.
I'm not sure how one responds to this save to point out that this argument clearly violates the very argument that you are offering to dismiss psychoanalysis. Any data from any science or belief system can be misused and manipulated. The notion that psychoanalysis will always do so constitutes an act of faith, one it seems designed to confirm negative preconceptions. It is basically a classic ad hominem attack -- psychoanalysis is inherently untrustworthy and thus cannot be believed.
Alan
Alan_Hoch said:
It seems to me you misunderstood my argument.
I was not complaining that it is impossible to explain psychoanalysis in a "30-second sound bit". I don't expect it, or any other science, to be (although I think that it is possible to explain the theory of evolution in laymen's terms — consider, for example, the excellent job Dawkings has done in this regard).
What I am complaining about is the impossibility of any serious error.
I can point to a few things which, if they would appear, would put evolution theory into serious trouble. Just one example: it is possible to reconstruct clades on genetic traits independent from physiological traits (since some portions of the genome don't have any physiological meaning). If you do this with several different methods, you always get the same tree of kinship as in the case of the physiological traits (it's not perfect, there are some minor discrepancies, but I am not as black-or-white as you seem to suppose). If the outcome would be different (which could well be possible, if, say, creationism would be true), evolution theory would be in trouble.
On the other side, I fail to see any prediction psychoanalysis makes that, if it fails, would be a serious problem.
"My prediction failed? Well, sure, I forgot to take into consideration that-and-that" or "well, it's just very complicated, and I am not a psychic, I can only predict tendencies, you know".
That's why I mentioned astrology.
"That was wrong? Uh, yes, silly me, I forgot to take Uranus into account." or "well, it's just very complicated, and I am not a psychic, I can only predict tendencies, you know".
The problem is: there is always an excuse why it went wrong, if it went wrong. And most of the times, you will never see if anything goes wrong.
What would be a complete and utter failure of psychoanalytic therapy? If the patient isn't cured after several years? But cancer patients are also sometimes not cured after several years of treatment, so maybe we should allow a very long treatment. That the patient commits suicide? But cancer patients also sometimes die. So that shouldn't be counted as a failure, since it's not black-or-white.
Then my question is: how do you know it's just not simply always neutral gray? Indistinguishable from a sugar pill?
Even an exact science like physics is forced to use gray values and statistics. It's not black-or-white over there either. But how do we know that it is a science at all?
You have been challenged to show how you can predict something. You mentioned a conservative tendency for people to stay the same, which suffers exceptions.
If you call the sentence "the inertia built up from previous events and responses will continue to have effects for today and the future" "a pretty self-evident truth", I agree. But that's not an ambitious scientific theory. If that is your predictive power, you don't need psychoanalysis for it. Like you don't need any knowledge about meteorology or expensive satellites to predict that the weather of tomorrow will most likely resemble the weather of today.
I didn't call psychoanalysts bad people being out to inflate their egos. I wouldn't be surprised at all to learn that most psychoanalysts are honest people wanting to help their patients. Once again: the same may be true for astrologers. Not all of them are in it for the money. Some of them seriously believe what they are doing – maybe even a majority of them, I don't know — and I don't care much either.
It is not that I think physicists are better people, or more honest. They make mistakes too. And sometimes they even lie. That's why you have to check things.
You certainly are able to explain how someone got to where they are today. But does this explanation have anything to do with reality? How do you test this? And how do you know your advice is really helpful? Besides it being helpful for the patient (or client or whatever) to have somebody to talk to?
Indeed I don't trust any theory, or the adherents of any theory, to play fair. I always expect that there will be inevitably people manipulating the data to fit the theory. This is what happens in physics if you don't test and check. This is what happens in any science if you do not test and check. It doesn't require bad intent. It happens to everybody.
I agree that some faith is needed – perhaps physics is just a great conspiracy, and they all band together to distort the truth? I trust that this isn't the case. But I also say you shouldn't have more trust than necessary. Or, more accurate: you shouldn't trust when you know (from bitter experience in the past) that even honesty can't and doesn't prevent distortions.
Why do you think double-blind tests are necessary? Because physicians are bad people who should not be trusted? No, because they just can't help distorting the results if they know what they shall expect.
Really? And what exactly does Science do but study "the effect" (through various forms of manipulation) to get at "the cause?" Are you trying to tell me that the greatest criteria Science employs in its research is not hindsight? What on earth is it doing trying to evaluate the results then? Who are you trying to fool man? Or, are you still stuck on the pre-conceived notion that I know little about Science? Or, is this just another diversionary tactic of yours to try and undermine what I'm trying to say? It sounds to me like you might be stuck on a couple of issues regarding your own personal bias here. Could it be because you had some bad experiences regarding religion when you were growing up? I don't doubt the possibility, in fact I think it's prevalent.Mercutio said:
Of course just because we had some bad experiences with our parents when we were growing up, doesn't mean we should disown them should it? ... albeit I did at one time.
So, now that I bring up the notion of cause-and-effect, am I supposed to prove to you that cause-and-effect exists? I thought this was already a given, according to Science that is.
I cannot speak for Jan, but I think that the problem is not that such manipulation of data can occur in psychoanalysis; you correctly point out that anyone in any science can manipulate the data. The problem is that, with a falsifiable theory, such manipulations are not part of the theory itself, but an attempt to hide something that is inconsistent with the theory. With psychoanalysis, all the manipulations are part of the theory itself, making it inherently unfalsifiable. There is no outcome that is inconsistent with the theory. (remember Freud's analysis of the mother's recurrent dream of her son dying in the fire? How it still managed to fit "every dream is the disguised fulfillment of a repressed wish"?)Alan_Hoch said:
As I said above, the data here are manipulated within the framework of psychoanalysis itself, and so cannot be said to have been "misused". "The notion that psychoanalysis will always do so" is a strawman, by the way--I don't make, nor do I need to make, such a claim. I have no idea when a psychoanalyst is manipulating data or not manipulating... Tell me...in psychoanalysis, how is it you determine when to claim "reaction formation" and when not to? Which is "manipulating the data"--making the claim or not making it? Given that we are always explaining something after the fact instead of predicting it, isn't the answer "whatever fits this time"?
And it is not an ad hominem attack--the "untrustworthy" aspect of psychoanalysis I speak of is simply its inherent unfalsifiability. It is not ad hominem, but a very real and meaningful flaw in the theory. An ad hom would be, for instance, to dismiss it because Freud was sexist (or whatever insult you choose), something unrelated to the theory itself.
Oh, it was not preconceived. I don't know you apart from your posts; you earned that notion. Please take some time to learn about experimental methodology; in particular, the difference between experimental and correlational research, and how we infer causality.Iacchus said:
While you are at it, read up on the "hindsight bias", and see why good research methodology is necessary to overcome our normal biases in thought.
See, now, this is ad hominem. Fortunately, I find it quite humorous, or I would find it quite insulting.
Mercutio said:
Why, because you say so? Psychoanalysis can't apply reason and logic like anyone else or admit a mistake?
You continue with this odd idea that ultimately psychoanalysis is something meant to be taken on faith, that its very ideas are predicated on validating preconceptions and not in finding facts. What can I say except your claims are simply ridiculous and, again, suggest that you are making sweeping claims about something you don't really understand. I don't say that as a criticism, but rather just to get across the fact that your charges are simply preposterious to anyone who understands psychoanalysis to a sufficient level.
I'm not sure what to add except to say that my previous observations stand -- psychoanalysis is scientific when its ideas are applied in a scientific fashion. There is nothing about it that is meant to be taken on faith. However, like any complicated science it's not something that can be mastered after reading a few paragraphs. I can't help but wonder if your disagreement with psychoanalysis stems from the simple fact you don't understand it. At the very least you seem obsessed with one particular application being misapplied one particular way. That is in the end not a lot with which to condemn a whole school of thought.
Actually, I prefer the Jungian approach which is hardly so rigid when it comes to the interpretation of dreams.
Uh, no. Like trying to understand any event or situation the solution that best works is the solution that best fits the facts.
I find it amazing that you are in effect saying that since psychoanalysis can find explanations for a wide range of phenomena that somehow demonstrates its ideas are unfalsifiable. In truth, all that means is that you have to take every interpretation on its own.
Likewise, the fact that interpretations can be revised in the light of new data is hardly a sign of a faith-based belief system. Science is forever going back and reevaluating old conclusions. Why is it such a crime when psychoanalysis does so? It honestly seems you are holding it to a far higher standard than science in general (or so I assume. I suppose it may be you have no faith in science as a rule).
I agree that at times what can seem like ad hominem is not, but I do not see how that is the case here. You are making unfounded, sweeping statements about a whole body of work based primarily on one distorted example taken out of context.
What alarms me about such responses is that they seem to fly in the face of good skepticism -- being a skeptic means being open to new ideas even as you evaluate them. I don't see that process at work here, just lazy preconceptions being taken at face value.
Alan